Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 31 Jul 2012 17:18:36 -0600 | From | Stephen Warren <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/3] regmap: enhance regmap-irq to handle 1 IRQ feeding n chips |
| |
On 07/30/2012 11:25 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 11:00:04AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: >> On 07/29/2012 02:36 PM, Mark Brown wrote: >>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 01:01:56PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: > >> I had implemented this in regmap since you'd specifically mentioned >> doing that. If I convert the code not to use separate IRQ domains for > > I think what I'd said was that we should factor it out rather than that > it should be specifically done in regmap. > >> this, would that be acceptable? > > Probably.
The more I think about this, the more I prefer the way the way it is in the patch I posted.
I don't think it's appropriate to put this support into the IRQ core. The main issue is that all the handlers for any shared wired-or interrupt line have to be registered before the IRQ is enabled, to avoid some initially active interrupt continually firing before the IRQ is enabled. Co-ordinating this when the wired-or line is on a board outside a device driver rather than internal to a chip and one device driver is a bit more than the IRQ core should probably be doing, hence I imagine why it doesn't support it.
Co-ordinating this setup where all the sources of the wired-or are in one chip seems to belong to the chip driver, which is where my patch did this.
I guess I could modify regmaps_irq_thread() so that instead of:
for (i = 0; i < d->nchips; i++) handle_nested_irq(irq_find_mapping(d->irqdom, i));
... it short-circuited and instead did something like:
for (i = 0; i < d->nchips; i++) regmap_irq_thread(irq_find_mapping(d->irqdom, i), d->datas[i]);
but it seems a little hokey to short-circuit the IRQ core; it would prevent execution of any statistics gathering or stuck interrupt handling that handle_nested_irq() might do for example.
Now, if we made each child regmap_irq not be its own IRQ domain or irq_chip, but simply had one top-level domain/chip that aggregated them, that argument would be moot. However, that top-level domain/chip would become rather complex and just end up doing a bunch of demultiplexing code that's not needed if we do it like in my patch...
| |